MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212497914 · doi:10.1002/ijop.12820

Investigating <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 stress and coping: Substance use and behavioural disengagement

2021· article· en· W3212497914 on OpenAlexaffabout
Esther R. Greenglass, Daniel Joseph Chiacchia, Lisa Fiskenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisengagement theoryPsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Coping (psychology)AnxietyPandemicSubstance useFeeling2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Avoidance copingClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryGerontologyMedicineDiseaseVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this online empirical study was to examine the relationship between COVID-19 stress, coping including substance use and behavioural disengagement, and avoidance behaviour early on in the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants, recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk, N = 730), were adults from Canada, the United States, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom. Results of path analysis showed that feeling threatened by the virus, predicted greater COVID-19 anxiety, which was related to greater substance use to cope with the virus, as well as more behavioural disengagement, which predicted less avoidance behaviour. Implications of the results are discussed, particularly the relationship between coping and avoidance behaviour during the pandemic.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.175
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of PsychologySame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207